Jump to content

[Peace Agreement] “The Way the Cookie Crumbles” war end.


Utter Nutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 10/12/2022 at 1:01 AM, Zim said:

Dosen't most wars end in a white peace? or "white peace" with secret terms. 

Most wars have ended with a clear victor who has not used harsh terms. Or admition of defeat without other terms. Getting to name a war is a decent candy for winning. Hell beats what the idiots in polls come up with. Five pages of shittie movie titles or something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, alyster said:

Most wars have ended with a clear victor who has not used harsh terms. Or admition of defeat without other terms. Getting to name a war is a decent candy for winning. Hell beats what the idiots in polls come up with. Five pages of shittie movie titles or something. 

My comment was more a reference to all alliance wars in general, not you know just the globals. That is not to say that white peace has never happened in globals, they have, and even more where it is as close as can be to it. 
 What would be your suggested solution here?
And even when there is a victor, it isn't exactly much motivation for keeping people in the ring, with gains being so minimalistic. 

If we should get some harsher demands we might actually start to get some more interesting globals, and once lasting longer than a month. We should really require a minimum length for a global.

A "global" that lasts for barely a week, isen't a war, it is a skirmish. 

If a promise of bragging rights can help achieve longer and more fun globals, be my guest. We haven't even had a global break the 1 trillion mark since Dial-up, even though Dial-up wasen't the first one to do so. 
And that is despite the fact the Orbis wealth has more than doubled since then. 

Another issue is thought if we let the winning side decide the name. Who will actually decide the name? the members of the winning alliances? or just the governments? 
Will it only be the "big alliances" in the bloc that get to vote? 
Will it be with Byzantine elections? where the higher-ups decide what names can vote for in the first place, how would names get nominated? 
What if the allied can't agree on a name? or what if the names chosen a still terrible? 

We really should plan out the replacement system in more detail before we start to dismantle the old system. 
Frankly, for most people the issue, seems to be mainly about their preferred name not being chosen. 
Else most hiccups with the systems should be simply solved by getting more people involved in the nominations and voting, if only something was around to motivate and inform players, oh right it called alliances. 

  • Upvote 1

tenor (1).gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Zim said:

My comment was more a reference to all alliance wars in general, not you know just the globals. That is not to say that white peace has never happened in globals, they have, and even more where it is as close as can be to it. 
 What would be your suggested solution here?
And even when there is a victor, it isn't exactly much motivation for keeping people in the ring, with gains being so minimalistic. 

If we should get some harsher demands we might actually start to get some more interesting globals, and once lasting longer than a month. We should really require a minimum length for a global.

A "global" that lasts for barely a week, isen't a war, it is a skirmish. 

If a promise of bragging rights can help achieve longer and more fun globals, be my guest. We haven't even had a global break the 1 trillion mark since Dial-up, even though Dial-up wasen't the first one to do so. 
And that is despite the fact the Orbis wealth has more than doubled since then. 

Another issue is thought if we let the winning side decide the name. Who will actually decide the name? the members of the winning alliances? or just the governments? 
Will it only be the "big alliances" in the bloc that get to vote? 
Will it be with Byzantine elections? where the higher-ups decide what names can vote for in the first place, how would names get nominated? 
What if the allied can't agree on a name? or what if the names chosen a still terrible? 

We really should plan out the replacement system in more detail before we start to dismantle the old system. 
Frankly, for most people the issue, seems to be mainly about their preferred name not being chosen. 
Else most hiccups with the systems should be simply solved by getting more people involved in the nominations and voting, if only something was around to motivate and inform players, oh right it called alliances. 

That would be up to the winning side, if that term continues.  They can do it however they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2022 at 7:38 AM, Arawra said:

Truthfully, if not for being relentlessly attacked throughout the course of the war despite being an uninvolved party, I don't think ASM would have needed to be part of the NAP~

In any case, well fought to our allies and congrats on peace~

If by "relentlessly attacked throughout the course of the war", you mean a bunch of random raids and nuke turreting in the last week and a half... I guess? So somehow a week and a half of random raids and nuke turreting justifies a 3 month NAP for y'all, despite y'all also having signed onto the no-NAP agreement... definitely just a collective shift in "healthy game perspective" from Ouro and definitely not just taking a convenient opportunity to ditch the agreement when it presented itself.

On 10/9/2022 at 9:53 AM, KindaEpicMoah said:

If this is true of talking about any alliance you've just beaten, Rose would have enough collective real estate in GGO's heads to cover the entirety of Asia 

 

Hell, Rose has enough free real estate in Hidude's head alone to put Elon Musk to shame 

All the "copium" and "rent free" stuff is so stupid... but also, was it not Rose who've hated us so much they didn't even bother defending themselves after the Jon Snow leaks and still have yet to engage us with any serious diplomacy whatsoever since... god knows when? Really makes you think.

Also, Rose bad. Unlike some people, at least I know how to stick to my principles 😌

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, hidude45454 said:

If by "relentlessly attacked throughout the course of the war", you mean a bunch of random raids and nuke turreting in the last week and a half... I guess? So somehow a week and a half of random raids and nuke turreting justifies a 3 month NAP for y'all, despite y'all also having signed onto the no-NAP agreement... definitely just a collective shift in "healthy game perspective" from Ouro and definitely not just taking a convenient opportunity to ditch the agreement when it presented itself.

The (not so) "random raids and nuke turreting" which concentrated solely on affiliates of Rose and Eclipse, during your war with them and not, in particular, ASM.

Right...

  • Downvote 1

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, hidude45454 said:

 

All the "copium" and "rent free" stuff is so stupid... but also, was it not Rose who've hated us so much they didn't even bother defending themselves after the Jon Snow leaks and still have yet to engage us with any serious diplomacy whatsoever since... god knows when? Really makes you think.

Also, Rose bad. Unlike some people, at least I know how to stick to my principles 😌

Only replying because you replied with a 'is so stupid' to Demi God Goober.

 

1. Have you seen the non-hidude content on dnn? How can you speak about anything other being stupid if you answer yes. (Yes, bit of trolling here, sorry)

2. I've said before as a non gov member of a top 10 alliance, no influence whatsoever. But, realpolitik is a common thing in Orbis, always has been. Yes, the meme with eclipse gov being not very consistent was spot on, very funny and will remain funny till the end of Orbis, but the same applies to almost all other gov of other top 15 alliances. What matters is being nice to eachother. 

3. You stick to your principles but your principles are shifty. Perhaps not true but funny still.

4. Leave goober alooooonneee. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Arawra said:

The (not so) "random raids and nuke turreting" which concentrated solely on affiliates of Rose and Eclipse, during your war with them and not, in particular, ASM.

Right...

3088a2bc9546c7a16d03d1404ae8b63cb76b1a1b

You could say it's the way the cookie crumbles.

 

 

  • Haha 4

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2022 at 8:01 PM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

That would be up to the winning side, if that term continues.  They can do it however they want.

And you think that will get you some better war names? oh honey, no. 

  • Haha 3

tenor (1).gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Arawra said:

The (not so) "random raids and nuke turreting" which concentrated solely on affiliates of Rose and Eclipse, during your war with them and not, in particular, ASM.

Right...

I didn't say the wars weren't intentional. Given even the NAP against Eclipse/Rose was far too long, I just meant this especially was barely enough to justify including you in a 3-month NAP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Arawra said:

The (not so) "random raids and nuke turreting" which concentrated solely on affiliates of Rose and Eclipse, during your war with them and not, in particular, ASM.

Right...

I'm confused, are you upset that GGO raided and nuke turreted the alliances that went to war with them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Buorhann said:

I'm confused, are you upset that GGO raided and nuke turreted the alliances that went to war with them?

They are in charge of Advanced Syndicalist Mechanics, so yeah. If only their enemies would just give up and not fight back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mayor said:

They are in charge of Advanced Syndicalist Mechanics, so yeah. If only their enemies would just give up and not fight back.

ASM had no enemies considering that we were completely uninvolved in the war. In spite of that we had come under a spree of wars from GGO so with all respect, this isn't the right tree you're barking up.

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Arawra said:

ASM had no enemies considering that we were completely uninvolved in the war. In spite of that we had come under a spree of wars from GGO so with all respect, this isn't the right tree you're barking up.

I'd say ASM has a few enemies tbh and your direct military allies declared an offensive war on GGO so if you did not want to get hit yourself you probably should have convinced your allies not to go along with their plans.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.